Cornflake wrote:

Hell, give me Aero for XP and I'm set for life!

Well said. I feel the same way honestly.

I was happy with Windows 3.11 for Workgroups, Windows 95 sucked and so did Windows 98 until second edition. Then along came another waste of disc space called Windows ME.
I like Windows XP, but I also like Vista even though it requires decent hardware, shoot I would have bought what hardware I bought anyway so that is not an issue for me. As far as hardware driver issues, I haven't had any to speak of.

Well XP did get it chance, got accepted world wide by customers and vendors at the same time.
Not much of a resource hog. Service paks and updates were out regularly and the best part is compatibilty with hardware.

I havent used a Vista machine yet. I will have to soon though.

My opinion Vista wont even make it that list.

EDIT: I did like Windows 2000. It was quite easy to master.

2K was a little irritating to me until the later SP's because you had to make all your drivers work with your hardware. That's the one thing I loved about XP. It was a little bloated, but your stuff usually worked. My main gripe with XP (if not my only real gripe) is the way a local profile gets bogged down. Over time the profile becomes so full of junk it slows the PC way way down. A new profile will make you think you just purchased a totally different PC... it's fast and quick again.

You can empty you local temp folder and you can set it that all the temp folders ( system and users' ) point to a folder other than the default. This happens on Vista too.

XP was a quantum leap ( as uncle Clive Sinclair used to call QL ) compared to 2K and one of the best characteristics was the Remote Desktops along with the plethora of drivers provided with the OS. It was fast and sleek , easy and beautiful. I loved XP when it came out and I was among the first who installed it. I loved the better than 2K kernel , and the better integration you cold achieve.